Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Key influence parameters for the joint shear behaviour of reinforced

concrete (RC) beam–column connections
Jaehong Kim ∗ , James M. LaFave 1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, United States

Received 13 July 2006; received in revised form 11 November 2006; accepted 14 December 2006
Available online 16 February 2007

Abstract

An extensive database of reinforced concrete (RC) beam–column connection test specimens exhibiting joint shear failure has been constructed.
All test specimens included (with at least a minimum amount of joint transverse reinforcement necessary for proper joint confinement) were
subjected to cyclic lateral loading, and had no out-of-plane members (transverse beams or slabs). Major categories within the database include the
type of joint shear failure (in conjunction with, and also without, yielding of longitudinal beam reinforcement), as well as connection type (interior,
exterior, and knee joint). Influence parameters for joint shear stress and/or strain behaviour at identified key points (displaying the most distinct
stiffness changes) have been assessed. Concrete cracking and yielding of joint transverse or longitudinal beam reinforcement triggered the most
distinct changes in stiffness, for both overall and local behaviour up to the point of initiation of joint shear failure (maximum experimental storey
shear). Examined parameters for joint shear behaviour were grouped by material property, joint panel geometry, reinforcement confinement,
column axial load, and reinforcement bond condition. The most important influence parameters on joint shear behaviour were found to be
somewhat different by connection type and failure mode sequence. However, concrete compressive strength was the most common governing
parameter on joint shear behaviour for all groups in the constructed database. In addition, joint shear cracking stresses and strains (for the point
displaying the first distinct stiffness change) were investigated by simple equations. Finally, the design checks recommended by ACI 352R-02
were also examined for the specimens within the constructed database.
c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Database; In-plane geometry; Shear–resistance; Failure mode; Influence parameter

1. Introduction and background
Since the mid-1960s, numerous experimental tests and
analytical studies have been performed to investigate the lateral
load performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beam–column
connections. When the flexural strength of well-detailed
longitudinal beam-plastic hinges limits the overall response,
RC beam column connections can display ductile behaviour
until they reach large inter-storey drifts. This failure mode is
considered the most desirable for maintaining good energy-
dissipation without the severe degradation of overall capacity.
On the other hand, RC beam–column connections can
show much more brittle behaviour when severe damage is
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 333 8322; fax: +1 217 265 8039.
E-mail addresses: kim48@uiuc.edu (J. Kim), jlafave@uiuc.edu
(J.M. LaFave).
1 Tel.: +1 217 333 8064; fax: +1 217 265 8039.
concentrated within the joint panel. Thus, joint shear behaviour
is important with regard to controlling the overall behaviour
of RC beam–column connections. The general terminology
of RC beam–column connections is dependent on their in-
plane geometry; namely, an “interior connection” has two
longitudinal beams with a continuous column, an “exterior
connection” has one longitudinal beam with a continuous
column, and a “knee connection” has one longitudinal beam
with a discontinuous column.
Hanson and Connor [1] first suggested a quantitative
definition of joint shear. Joint shear was determined from
a free-body diagram, at mid-height of the joint panel.
Paulay et al. [2] introduced qualitative shear–resistance
mechanisms for the joint panel. These shear–resistance
mechanisms consist of a concrete strut and/or a truss. The
shear–resistance of the concrete strut mechanism comes
from force transfer to the joint panel by bearing from the
concrete compression zones of adjacent beam and column

0141-0296/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.12.012
2524 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
members, while the shear–resistance of the concrete truss
mechanism comes from force transfer to the joint panel by
the bond between the reinforcement and surrounding concrete.
After these benchmark studies with respect to joint shear
in RC beam–column connections, numerous researchers have
subsequently conducted RC beam–column connection tests,
collected experimental specimen data, and investigated possible
influence parameters on joint shear strengths. In general, it
has been found that joint shear failure can either occur in
conjunction with the yielding of beam reinforcement (so-called
“BJ” failures) or without the yielding of beam reinforcement
(so-called “J” failures).
For example, Kitayama et al. [3] examined 24 interior
“BJ” failures and 19 interior “J” failures from experiments
conducted by themselves and by others. They reported two
findings related to joint shear strength. First, joint shear strength
was independent of the column axial load. Second, joint shear
strength was not improved by an increase in the amount of
joint transverse reinforcement when the dimensionless joint
transverse reinforcement ratio (total area of joint transverse
reinforcement located in the loading direction and placed
between the top and bottom beam reinforcement, divided by
the product of column width and 7/8-ths of beam effective
depth) was already above 0.4%. Bonacci and Pantazopoulou [4]
collected data from experiments consisting of 35 interior “BJ”
failures and 16 interior “J” failures, without any restriction
on the amount (cross-sectional area and spacing) of joint
transverse reinforcement. They indicated that joint shear
strength has no coherent relation to column axial load.
By calculating the potential contribution of joint transverse
reinforcement to joint shear strength, they further explained that
joint transverse reinforcement participated significantly in the
shear–resistance mechanism.
Goto and Joh [5] collected experimental data from 52
interior “BJ” failures and 23 interior “J” failures, again with
no limitation on the amount of joint transverse reinforcement
used. According to their examination, joint shear strength was
dependent on the concrete’s compressive strength, while joint
transverse reinforcement also somewhat affected joint shear
strength. Kamimura et al. [6] collected data from 87 interior
joint tests; in this collected data, the governing failure modes
included beam flexural failure in addition to “BJ” failures
and “J” failures. As in other previous research, there was no
restriction on the amount of joint transverse reinforcement
when collecting the data. They reported that joint shear strength
and storey drift were little influenced by the amount of joint
transverse reinforcement.
Kitayama [7] proposed a tri-linear envelope curve for RC
joint shear behaviour, by defining joint shear moduli based
on 11 interior “BJ” failures and 3 interior “J” failures (that
again had no restriction on the amount of joint transverse
reinforcement). To determine the shear moduli after diagonal
cracking of the joint panel, the following were considered: the
concrete’s compressive strength, joint transverse reinforcement,
column longitudinal reinforcement, column axial load, and
lateral confinement by transverse beams and/or slabs. Similar to
the suggestion of Kitayama, Teraoka and Fujii [8] also proposed
an envelope curve for joint shear behaviour, which consisted of
four line segments. In their suggestion, joint shear strains at key
transition points were fixed, regardless of the diversity of joint
panels.
Shin and LaFave [9] also collected data for more than
50 interior joints (“J” and “BJ” failures) from published
experimental papers. All collected specimens had at least
50% of the required cross-sectional area, and satisfactory
spacing, of joint transverse reinforcement per ACI 318-02 [10].
The geometries of their collected specimens were diverse
(with/without eccentricity between longitudinal beams and the
column, and with/without slab(s) and/or transverse beam(s)).
Based on the collected experimental data, they defined key
points that showed the most distinct stiffness changes of local
behaviour (joint shear stress vs. joint shear strain) for RC
interior beam–column connections. The first distinct stiffness
change was triggered by the initiation of diagonal cracking
within the joint panel. The second distinct stiffness change
was caused by the yielding of the reinforcement (longitudinal
beam reinforcement in “BJ” failures and joint transverse
reinforcement in “J” failures). Among the parameters examined
to investigate the characteristics of interior joint shear
behaviour were the joint transverse reinforcement ratio times
joint reinforcement yield strength (normalized by the square
root of concrete compressive strength), and also the column
axial stress divided by the concrete’s compressive strength;
joint shear behaviour seemed to be little affected by these two
examined parameters.
The research reported herein has been performed in part to
investigate questions triggered from the previous study by Shin
and LaFave [9]. To characterize joint shear stress and strain
behaviour more systematically, an even more extensive set
of experimental specimens have been collected and classified
according to the in-plane geometry, out-of-plane geometry, and
presence of eccentricity between longitudinal beams and the
column. In this paper, all included experimental specimens
had the same out-of-plane geometry (namely no transverse
beams or slabs) and no eccentricity between longitudinal beams
and the column; hence, the included experimental specimens
were mainly classified by their in-plane geometry (interior,
exterior, and knee joints). As distinct from previous databases,
this database was constructed to ensure proper confinement
within a joint panel by first determining an appropriate “cut-
off” point for the minimum cross-sectional area (in the direction
of loading) of the joint transverse reinforcement. In spite
of limiting the cross-sectional area of the joint transverse
reinforcement for inclusion in this database, a total of 139
interior joints, exterior joints, and knee joints were still
included, which is a larger number of experimental specimens
than in any previous experimental database (with or without the
limitation on amount of joint transverse reinforcement). Based
on the constructed database, the main influence parameters on
the joint shear stress and strain behaviour were then evaluated
by plotting the joint shear stress (or joint shear strain) vs.
various examined parameters at key points, displaying the most
distinct stiffness changes in the joint shear stress and strain
behaviour. Additionally, the reasonableness of the calculated
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
cracking joint shear stresses and strains was investigated, and
some recommendations of ACI 352R-02 [11] have also been
briefly examined.
2. Database construction
2.1. Selection of experimental specimens
The database of experimental RC beam–column connections
was constructed by applying a consistent set of criteria.
All included test specimens were subassemblies of RC
moment resisting frames, at or above one-third scale. All
specimens were subjected to cyclic lateral loading, and their
final governing modes were either “BJ” or “J” failures.
No specimens in the constructed database had out-of-
plane members (such as transverse beams and/or slabs) or
eccentricity between longitudinal beams and the column. The
database contains only specimens with conventional types of
reinforcement anchorage (no headed bars); longitudinal beam
and column reinforcement are either anchored by hooks or
pass continuously through the joint panel, according to the
in-plane geometry. In interior connections, longitudinal beam
and column reinforcement both pass through the joint panel.
In exterior connections, beam reinforcement are typically
anchored by hooks, and column reinforcement pass through
the joint panel. Finally, in knee connections, both beam and
column reinforcement are typically anchored by hooks within
a joint panel. Furthermore, a minimum cross-sectional area
of horizontal joint transverse reinforcement for inclusion in
the database (necessary for proper confinement within a joint
panel) was determined, as described below.
Joint transverse reinforcement typically consists of rectan-
gular hoops and cross-ties. An “Ash ratio” (provided amount
of joint transverse reinforcement divided by the recommended
amount, in the direction of loading, following ACI 352R-
02 [11]) can be used to assess the minimum cross-sectional area
of horizontal joint transverse reinforcement needed for proper
confinement within a joint panel. If the stress vs. strain rela-
tion of the joint transverse reinforcement is elastic with a yield
plateau, then the yield point is easily determined, and the joint
transverse reinforcement will not much resist deformation from
the yield point onward, up to the point of strain hardening ini-
tiation. On the other hand, if the stress vs. strain relation of
joint transverse reinforcement is nonlinear (and still ascending)
from the proportional limit, then the yield point could, for in-
stance, be estimated using the 0.2% offset method, and the joint
transverse reinforcement may resist additional deformation af-
ter passing the yield point. Thus, different types of joint trans-
verse reinforcement could affect joint confinement somewhat
differently, depending on their exact stress vs. strain relations.
However, because information is typically given only about the
yield stress of joint transverse reinforcement in most experi-
mental research papers, joint transverse reinforcement is here
assumed to be not particularly effective at providing much con-
finement to the joint panel once it reaches its yield stress.
In cases when the joint shear capacity limits the maximum
response of the overall subassembly behaviour, the joint
2525
transverse reinforcement almost always reaches its yield
stress (often even in spite of satisfying the current area
recommendations of ACI 352R-02). Furthermore, any presence
of out-of-plane members (such as transverse beams and/or
slabs) could provide additional confinement to a joint panel,
so only experimental specimens without out-of-plane members
and those that maintain beam flexural failure are examined
first below, with respect to their strain in the joint transverse
reinforcement, for the purpose of assessing proper confinement
within a joint panel.
Experimental specimens that experienced beam flexural
failure as a final governing mode and having no out-of-plane
members were surveyed, with 50 interior and 38 exterior
connections found in the literature. However, only 14 of the
50 interior connections and 12 of the 38 exterior connections
provided detailed test results for the strain in joint transverse
reinforcement throughout the testing (probably because joint
shear behaviour was not the main focus of these particular
experiments). As shown in Table 1, the joint transverse
reinforcement of both interior and exterior joints did not reach
yield strain throughout these tests when the Ash ratios were
above about 0.70 [1,6,12–24]. Therefore, when constructing
the selected database of beam–column connections exhibiting
joint shear failure for further study, only specimens with Ash
ratios of at least 0.70 were included (for both interior and
exterior joints), to ensure a minimum adequate amount of
joint confinement. For knee joints, there were no comparable
available beam bending failure specimens for determining an
appropriate minimum Ash ratio; so, similarly as for interior and
exterior joints, specimens with Ash ratios of at least 0.70 were
also included for knee joints.
In order to collect experimental beam–column connection
test specimens with joint shear failures (either “J” or “BJ”)
subjected to cyclic lateral loading, experimental papers and
reports published from the United States, New Zealand, Japan,
and the Republic of Korea (some in their own languages)
have been surveyed. Ash ratios were equal to or above 0.70
for 78 interior specimens, 48 exterior specimens, and 13
knee specimens. A summary of this constructed database
(comprising a total of 139 connections) is provided in Tables 2–
4 [1,3,6,19,21–23,25–70].
Per ACI 352R-02 [11], the RC beam–column connections
in the database were examined with respect to four common
design checks, to put them into better context. ACI 352R-
02 recommends design values for the total column-to-beam
moment strength ratio, the cross-sectional area and the spacing,
of the joint transverse reinforcement, the column depth with
respect to continuous beam bar diameter (or development
length of hooked beam bars), and the joint shear strength, in
order to prevent weak column-strong beam behaviour, failure
triggered by improper confinement of a joint panel, severe
bond deterioration, and joint shear failure, respectively. (In this
research, actual material strengths are used here, while the yield
stress multiplier of 1.25 for longitudinal beam reinforcement
was not considered in examining these provisions for the
constructed database.) Almost all of the total column-to-beam
moment strength ratios were above 1.0. The Ash ratios were
2526 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539

Table 1
Strain in joint transverse reinforcement for interior and exterior connections exhibiting beam flexural failure

Connection type First author Specimen name Ash ratio Joint transverse reinforcement
Interior connection subassemblies Kitayama [12] C1 0.47 Yielding
Kurose [13] C2 1.47 Not yielding
C3 3.32 Not yielding
Zerbe [14] I 0.70 Not yielding
Kikuta [15] TFT4 0.76 Not yielding
J1 0.50 Yielding
Etoh [16] J2 0.49 Yielding
J3 0.50 Yielding
I5 0.16 Yielding
Kitayama [17]
I6 0.16 Yielding
No 4 0.62 Yielding
Kamimura [6]
No 5 1.03 Not yielding
PL-16 0.63 Yielding
Joh [18]
PL-10 0.56 Yielding

Exterior connection subassemblies Hanson [1] 1 0.47 Yielding

Megget [19] Unit B 1.47 Not yielding
Lee [20] 2 1.05 Not yielding
1 1.21 Not yielding
Ehsani [21]
2 1.17 Not yielding
Zerbe [14] E 0.70 Not yielding
Hamada [22] J-9 1.09 Not yielding
Chutarat [23] Specimen A 1.26 Not yielding
3T44 1.02 Not yielding
3T4 0.46 Yielding
Hwang [24]
2T5 0.33 Yielding
1T55 0.36 Yielding

mainly between 0.70 and 2.0 for interior and exterior joints,
and from 0.70 to 1.10 for knee joints. Three-fourths of the
interior joints, two-thirds of the exterior joints, and all of the
knee joints had a spacing of the joint transverse reinforcement
equal to or closer than that recommended. For anchorage of
the longitudinal beam reinforcement, one-third of the interior
joints had satisfactory column depths, while 40% of the
exterior joints and 93% of the knee joints had satisfactory
development lengths (and, on average, the column depths were
approximately equal to the recommended values). Computed
joint shear demands were above the joint shear strength defined
by ACI 352R-02 in 88% of the interior joints, 65% of the
exterior joints, and 69% of the knee joints.
2.2. Key points of the joint shear behaviour
From the 139 selected experimental specimens, about 40%
of the cases provided data on both overall behaviour (storey
shear vs. storey drift) and local behaviour (joint shear stress
vs. joint shear strain), while the others only provided overall
behaviour data. Fig. 1 shows that the cyclic overall and local
behaviours can be reasonably represented as envelope curves
by linearly connecting three points displaying the most distinct
stiffness changes (specifically shown for an interior connection
specimen exhibiting a “BJ” failure [30]). After drawing an
initial tangent line from the origin, the point that triggers a
significantly different tangent line (compared to the initial one)
could be found; this point was considered to be the first point
(point A) displaying a distinct stiffness change. Then, after
drawing a new tangent line at point A, the point that triggers
a significantly different tangent line compared to this second
tangent line could be found; this point was considered to be the
second point (point B) displaying a distinct stiffness change.
The third point (point C) was simply located at the maximum
shear/stress response of overall or local behaviour.
As shown in Fig. 1, the locations displaying distinct stiffness
changes in storey shear vs. storey horizontal displacement are
similar to the locations displaying distinct stiffness changes
in storey shear vs. joint shear strain, and this tendency
was confirmed throughout the database for cases that had
information about both overall and local behaviour. This means
that the formation of new damage in and around a joint panel
also triggers distinct stiffness changes in overall behaviour
(within specimens of the constructed database, experiencing
joint shear failure). Based on this identification, joint shear
stresses were calculated throughout by using storey shear values
at points A, B, and C of the overall behaviour. By using force
and moment equilibria along with a free-body diagram at the
mid-height of a joint panel, joint shear can be further calculated
from the key points of overall behaviour (even in cases for
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
(a) Storey shear vs. storey displacement.
Fig. 1. Comparison of points displaying distinct stiffness changes (Leon [30]).
(a) Loading condition.
Fig. 2. Joint shear of interior connections.
which they were not provided as local behaviour information).
For example, Fig. 2 indicates the joint shear at mid-height
of the joint panel for interior connections. The average joint
shear stress was calculated as the joint shear (force) divided
by the product of effective joint width (average of beam and
column widths) and column depth. Thus, all selected specimens
can be included for purposes of examining the influence of
various parameters on the joint shear stress at key points, while
only about 40% of them can be used in examining influence
parameters on the joint shear strain at key points.
The schematic envelopes of the cyclic behaviour were used
to evaluate influence parameters for the joint shear stress and
strain behaviours. In both interior and exterior connections, a
joint panel is subjected to both closing and opening actions
at the same time due to column continuity. Maximum storey
shear can be considered as corresponding to the joint shear
capacity when the final governing failure mode is joint shear
failure. Thus, the schematic envelope of cyclic behaviour was
drawn in the loading direction displaying maximum storey
shear (positive or negative storey drift) for interior and exterior
connections (with the other direction typically having about
95% of the overall maximum at its peak). Differing from
interior and exterior connections, a knee connection joint panel
is subjected to either only closing, or only opening, action (in
2527
(b) Storey shear vs. joint shear strain.
(b) Free-body diagram at the
mid-height of joint panel.
one particular loading direction) due to column discontinuity.
Thus, the schematic envelopes of cyclic behaviour were drawn
for both opening and closing actions for knee connections.
In general, significant concrete cracking, reinforcement
yielding, and/or concrete crushing represent the formation
of new damage within a joint panel. The first stiffness
change (point A) is caused by the initiation of diagonal
cracking within the joint panel. Before the initiation of
concrete crushing within the joint panel (point C), a possible
additional stiffness change can occur from the yielding of the
reinforcement. In “J” failures, the beam reinforcement does
not ever reach the yield stress, so the only remaining reason
for a distinct stiffness change is the yielding of the joint
transverse reinforcement. As noted by Shin and LaFave [9],
the joint transverse reinforcement reaches the yield stress (in
the loading direction) at around point B, which indicates that
the second stiffness change (point B) is caused from the
yielding of the joint transverse reinforcement in the interior
“J” failures [49,50]. Differing from interior “J” failures, there
is no clear stiffness change between points A and C in
exterior “J”, knee closing “J”, and knee opening “J” failures;
the stiffness decreases gradually after passing point A until
reaching point C. Some experimental papers report that the joint
transverse reinforcement did not necessarily reach the yield
2528 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539

Table 2 Table 2 (continued)

Constructed database of interior joint subassemblies v
First author Specimen name Failure mode f c0 (MPa) √j 0 a
v fc
First author Specimen name Failure mode f c0 (MPa) √j 0 a
fc Tateishi [41] KSC J 24.5 1.95
Meinheit [25] 12 BJ 35.2 2.15 Morita [50] No 1 J 22.1 2.24
Briss [26] B1 BJ 27.9 1.21 No 4 J 22.5 2.35
B2 BJ 31.5 1.22 No 5 J 21.6 2.38
Durrani [27] X1 BJ 34.3 1.39 J3 J 81.2 1.88
X2 BJ 33.7 1.32 J10 J 39.2 1.87
Kitayama [28] B2 BJ 24.5 1.81 S3 J 28.0 1.72
Watanabe [29] WJ-1 BJ 29.0 1.62 1 J 33.6 1.90
WJ-3 BJ 29.0 1.90 2 J 33.6 1.90
Leon [30] BCJ2 BJ 27.6 1.25 3 J 34.5 1.88
BCJ3 BJ 27.6 1.23 4 J 36.6 2.07
Inoue [31] SP2 BJ 43.3 1.25 5 J 36.6 2.07
Kitayama [3] J1 BJ 25.7 1.59 9 J 30.5 1.73
B3 BJ 24.5 1.64 10 J 30.5 1.74
Hayashi [32] No 34 BJ 39.4 1.13 12 J 32.2 1.92
No 36 BJ 39.4 1.50
a Maximum experimental joint shear stress/the square root of concrete
Noguchi [33] OKJ-1 BJ 70.0 1.87
OKJ-4 BJ 70.0 1.97 compressive strength (unit: MPa0.5 ).
Goto [34] PH BJ 30.5 1.30
Asou [35] No 1 BJ 44.1 1.63
stress until maximum response (point C) was achieved in such
Kaku [36] J11A BJ 57.5 1.51
J11B BJ 57.5 1.77 connections [54,59,62].
J12A BJ 56.5 1.89 In all “BJ” failures, the longitudinal beam and joint
J12B BJ 56.5 1.82 transverse reinforcement each typically reached the yield stress
J12C BJ 57.5 1.94 before the maximum response point (point C). Experimental
J31A BJ 55.2 1.46
papers often reported that the beam reinforcement reached
J31B BJ 55.2 1.41
J32A BJ 55.2 1.89 the yield stress at around point B, while the joint transverse
J32B BJ 55.2 1.88 reinforcement reached the yield stress between points B and
Kamimura [37] A-1 BJ 19.3 1.93 C [3,6,19,21,22,30,34,42,51,52]. Therefore, for “BJ” failures,
Teraoka [38] HNO1 BJ 95.4 1.76 the second stiffness change appears to be mainly caused by
HNO2 BJ 95.4 2.46
the yielding of the beam reinforcement, and then the joint
HNO3 BJ 95.4 2.32
HNO4 BJ 95.4 2.26 transverse reinforcement reaches the yield stress between points
Oda [39] BN-4 BJ 58.8 1.48 B and C. In all types of connections and for all failure
Tochio [40] J1 BJ 27.0 2.27 modes, after concrete crushing occurred within the joint panel
No 3 BJ 28.5 2.23 (subsequent to point C), the joint shear–resistance was usually
Tateishi [41] AIJ BJ 24.5 1.11
reduced, which limited the overall capacity and triggered a
HRP BJ 25.0 1.30
CSP BJ 33.3 1.16
storey shear decrease.
JCR BJ 25.0 1.31
HBS BJ 25.0 1.55 3. Initiation of diagonal cracking within an RC joint panel
Kamimura [6] No 2 BJ 28.5 1.41 (point A)
No 3 BJ 28.5 1.43
Joh [42] PH-16 BJ 23.6 1.28 Shear stress (or strain) can be determined by applying a
PH-13 BJ 26.3 1.44
PH-10 BJ 25.6 1.46
stress (or strain) coordinate transformation if three normal
Shiohara [44] 6 BJ 39.6 2.07 stresses (or strains) are known. For point A (displaying the first
7 BJ 46.7 1.83 distinct stiffness change), the joint shear stress (v j ) and the
8 BJ 46.7 1.83 strain (γ ) are expressed in the following form:
Saka [45] INS BJ 55.8 1.53 q
Ishida [46] HS-HS BJ 70.0 1.25
v j (cracking) = σx σ y − σx σt − σ y σt + σt2 (1)
Meinheit [25] 13 J 41.3 1.75 q
14 J 33.2 1.84
γ (cracking) = 2 εx ε y − εx εt − ε y εt + εt2 (2)
Besso [47] J1 J 31.7 2.06
Owada [47] J0-1 J 20.1 1.51 where σx , σ y , and σt are the beam average axial stress, the col-
J0-2 J 20.1 1.66
Watanabe [29] WJ-6 J 29.0 2.26
umn average axial stress, and the joint principal tensile stress,
Kitayama [48] A1 J 30.6 1.80 respectively; εx (=σx /E c ), ε y (=σ y /E c ), and εt (=σt /E c ) are
Fujii [49] A4 J 40.2 1.66 the beam average axial strain, column average axial strain,
Noguchi [33] OKJ-3 J 107.0 1.96 and joint principal tensile strain, respectively. In the above
OKJ-5 J 70.0 1.99 Eqs. (1) and (2), tensile stress and strain are positive values,
[nofooter] OKJ-6 J 53.5 1.88
while compressive stress and strain are negative values. The
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539 2529

Table 3 4700 times the square root of concrete compressive strength (in
Constructed database of exterior joint subassemblies MPa) [10]. (This standard equation for the secant modulus of
v elasticity of the concrete from the origin up to about one-third
First author Specimen name Failure mode f c0 (MPa) √j 0 a
fc
of the compressive strength was used instead of the actual (and
Hanson [1] 1-A BJ 36.4 0.97 probably slightly higher) initial tangent modulus of elasticity of
Megget [19] Unit A BJ 22.1 1.13 the concrete, because the experimental papers and reports did
Uzumeri [51] 6 BJ 36.2 0.81
7 BJ 30.8 0.85 not typically provide detailed information about concrete stress
8 BJ 26.3 1.06 vs. strain behaviour.)
Paulay [52] Unit 2 BJ 22.5 0.93 For interior and exterior connections, the columns are
Kaneda [53] U42L BJ 30.1 0.74 typically subjected to a constant axial force during testing;
Ehsani [21] 3B BJ 40.9 1.35
4B BJ 44.6 1.42
the column axial stress and strain can therefore be considered
Ehsani [54] 3 BJ 64.7 1.05 as constant values up to the cracking point. However, in
4 BJ 67.3 1.12 knee connections the beam and column axial compressions
Nishiyama [55] RC2 BJ 29.8 0.92 (with closing action) or tensions (with opening action) are not
Ehsani [56] LL8 BJ 55.9 0.97 constant during a test. In order to find the beam and column
LH8 BJ 55.9 0.94
LH11 BJ 73.8 1.06 axial stress at cracking in such a case, the joint shear stress
HH8 BJ 55.9 1.17 was calculated for a given column shear by using force and
HH11 BJ 73.8 1.01 moment equilibrium along with a free-body diagram at the
Tsonos [57] S3 BJ 19.0 0.88 mid-height of the joint panel. Then, this joint shear stress was
S60 BJ 29.0 1.14
compared to the joint shear stress calculated from Eq. (1); the
Mitsuwa [58] No 18 BJ 20.8 0.85
No 20 BJ 25.6 0.71 column shear was continuously increased until the joint shear
No 21 BJ 19.2 0.92 stress from equilibrium was equal to the joint shear stress from
No 22 BJ 21.0 0.87 Eq. (1). Finally, then, the beam and column axial stress and
Joh [59] NRC-J13 BJ 79.4 1.36 strain could be determined.
Tsonos [60] MS4 BJ 33.7 1.02
Hamada [22] J-10 BJ 34.3 1.24 Fig. 3 shows (a) the experimental joint shear stress at point
Chutarat [23] Specimen1 BJ 27.6 1.08 A vs. the calculated cracking joint shear stress and (b) the
experimental joint shear strain at point A vs. the calculated
Ehsani [21] 1B J 33.6 1.05
2B J 35.0 1.12 cracking joint shear strain. The average, maximum, minimum,
5B J 24.3 1.09 standard deviation, and coefficient of variation of the point
Joh [61] HO-NO J 29.6 1.20 A joint shear stress ratios (the experimental joint shear stress
MM-NO J 27.7 1.18 divided by the calculated joint shear stress) are 0.98, 1.20, 0.72,
HH-NO J 29.3 1.37
0.11, and 0.11, respectively. For the point A joint shear strain
H0 O-NO J 31.5 1.09
HH-N96 J 30.5 1.27 ratios (experimental joint shear strain divided by the calculated
Joh [62] NRC-J1 J 51.5 1.66 joint shear strain), the average, maximum, minimum, standard
NRC-J2 J 81.7 1.47 deviation, and coefficient of variation are 1.08, 1.52, 0.50, 0.21,
NRC-J4 J 88.9 1.56 and 0.19, respectively. The computed cracking joint shear stress
Fujii [49] B4 J 30.0 1.28
Ehsani [56] HL8 J 55.1 1.17
predicted the experimental joint shear stress somewhat more
Tsonos [57] S4 J 21.0 0.82 closely than the calculated cracking joint shear strain predicted
S5 J 25.0 0.86 the experimental joint shear strain across all connections. In any
S6 J 33.0 0.84 event, the equations for the cracking joint shear stress and strain
Ishida [63] A-O J 27.0 0.97 appear to be able to reasonably estimate the joint shear stress
A-O-F J 27.0 0.91
Yamada [64] BUC J 19.0 0.78
and strain at point A.
BUH J 19.0 0.82 As reported by Shin and LaFave [9], the entire envelope
Lee [65] NJ2+0.0 J 23.5 0.85 curve of joint shear stress vs. joint shear strain response
a Maximum experimental joint shear stress/the square root of concrete may be approximately predicted for certain situations (e.g.,
compressive strength (unit: MPa0.5 ). well-detailed interior connections) by employing an analytical
procedure, such as the modified compression field theory.
However, one of the purposes of this research is to provide
angle of inclination of the principal strains with respect to the helpful information toward developing overall analytical
x-axis is the same as the angle of inclination of the principal approaches for joint shear prediction through the assessment of
stresses to the x-axis. These principal tensile stresses and strains influence parameters on joint shear stress and strain behaviour
were assumed for the stress and strain of the concrete tensile across a variety of connection types. Joint cracking shear stress
strength, because point A corresponds to initiation of diago- and strain can be roughly predicted by applying the proposed
nal cracking within a joint panel. The concrete tensile strength simple Eqs. (1) and (2). Beyond that, then, a more detailed
(=σt ) may be defined as 0.33 times the square root of the con- assessment of some key influence parameters on RC joint shear
crete compressive strength (in MPa) [71], and E c is taken as behaviour has been focused below on points B and C.
2530 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
(a) Joint shear stress.
Fig. 3. Experimental and calculated joint shear stress and strain (point A).
4. Assessment of key influence parameters on ultimate joint
shear behaviour
The important influence parameters on RC joint shear
behaviour can be determined by evaluating the relation
between the joint shear stress (and/or strain) and the examined
parameters at key points B and C. An independent relation
may be assumed with each examined parameter. Then a linear
correlation coefficient can be determined to represent the
relation between the joint shear stress (and/or strain) and each
examined parameter. These linear correlation coefficients are
normalized measures of the linear relations of plotted data
points in an X Y -plane [72]. The linear correlation coefficient
is calculated as the covariance divided by the product of the X
and Y standard deviations. The covariance is the average of the
products of (x − µx ) and (y − µ y ); x is the X variable of each
datum, y is the Y variable of each datum, µx is the mean of
the X variable, and µ y is the mean of the Y variable. The range
of possible linear correlation coefficients is from −1 to 1. If a
linear correlation coefficient is −1, the Y variable is perfectly
inversely proportional to the X variable, while if the correlation
coefficient is 1, then the Y variable is perfectly proportional
to the X variable. If a linear correlation coefficient is 0, this
means that the X and Y variables are uncorrelated. By plotting
the joint shear stress (or joint shear strain) against the examined
parameters at key points and then checking the correlation
coefficients, the degree of influence of each parameter on the
joint shear behaviour can be assessed.
4.1. Concrete compressive strength
The database ranges of the concrete compressive strengths
were from 19 to 107 MPa for interior joints, from 19 to 89 MPa
for exterior joints, and from 26 to 42 MPa for knee joints. The
concrete compressive strength and also the square root of the
concrete compressive strength, were considered for evaluating
their relation to joint shear stress and strain at key points B and
C. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the joint shear stress had similar
relations to the concrete compressive strength, and the square
(b) Joint shear strain.
root of the concrete compressive strength, at the identified key
points for interior, exterior, and knee connections. (And in
general, the values of the correlation coefficients (CC) for the
joint shear stress/strain vs. the concrete compressive strength
are similar to the values of the correlation coefficients for the
joint shear stress/strain vs. the square root of the concrete
compressive strength.) The joint shear stresses were quite
proportional to the square root of the concrete compressive
strength at points B and C, except in the cases of the knee
closing “BJ” and knee opening “BJ” failures. In part due to a
narrow range of concrete compressive strengths, knee closing
and opening “BJ” failures did not show any consistent tendency.
Most knee joints (9 of 13 cases) had the same top and bottom
beam reinforcement; however, the maximum knee joint shear
stresses with an opening action were only from 43% to 83% of
the maximum knee joint shear stresses with a closing action.
The concrete compressive strength is the common influence
parameter for the joint shear stress at points B and C. For
example, the joint shear stress correlation coefficients with the
square root of the concrete compressive strength are 0.93 at
point B, and also 0.93 at point C, for interior “J” failures. Under
the same conditions for the concrete compressive strength and
governing failure mode, the joint shear stresses at points B
and C became less in the following sequence of joint types:
interior, exterior, knee with a closing action, and knee with
an opening action. When considering the qualitative joint
shear–resistance mechanisms suggested by Paulay et al. [2],
the joint geometries for effective shear–resistance mechanisms
become progressively worse in that same sequence. Thus, the
joint shear–resistance decreases in the sequence of interior,
exterior, knee with a closing action, and knee with an opening
action for the same concrete compressive strength and other
connection details.
Fig. 6 shows joint shear strain vs. the square root of the
concrete compressive strength at points B and C. Joint shear
strains appear to be proportional to the square root of the
concrete compressive strength, except for the following – point
C of “BJ” failures, and point B of knee closing and opening
“BJ” failures. After the longitudinal beam reinforcement
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539 2531

(a) Joint shear stress vs. concrete compressive strength. (b) Joint shear stress vs. square root of concrete compressive strength.

Fig. 4. Concrete compressive strength and square root of concrete compressive strength (point B).

(a) Joint shear stress vs. concrete compressive strength. (b) Joint shear stress vs. square root of concrete compressive strength.

Fig. 5. Concrete compressive strength and square root of concrete compressive strength (point C).

(a) Point B. (b) Point C.

Fig. 6. Joint shear strain vs. square root of concrete compressive strength (points B and C).

reached the yield stress in such cases, a plastic hinge formed caused a disturbance to the joint shear deformation at point
at the joint panel/beam interface, and its plastic deformation C. Thus, the joint shear strains of the interior, exterior, and
2532 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539

Table 4
Constructed database of knee joint subassemblies

First author Specimen name f c0 (MPa) Closing Opening

v v
Failure mode √j 0 a Failure mode √j 0 a
fc fc

Kramer [66] Joint 4 34.6 BJ 0.50 BJ 0.34

McConnell [67] KJ 5 31.5 BJ 0.74 BJ 0.32
KJ 7 32.9 BJ 0.79 BJ 0.31
KJ 8 36.4 BJ 0.63 BJ 0.29
KJ 10 38.0 BJ 0.61 BJ 0.28
KJ 11 35.0 BJ 0.65 BJ 0.41
KJ 13 31.7 BJ 0.67 BJ 0.43
Aota [68] LP 16-4 33.7 BJ 0.74 BJ 0.57

Mazzoni [69] 2-Hoop 42.1 J 0.71 J 0.40

4-Hoop 42.1 J 0.72 J 0.43
Shimonoka [70] L-U 32.0 J 0.69 J 0.29
Aota [68] LP18-2 26.4 J 0.60 J 0.43
LP18-3 27.7 J 0.47 J 0.39
a Maximum experimental joint shear stress/the square root of concrete compressive strength (unit: MPa0.5 ).

knee “BJ” failures do not show any specific relation to the
square root of concrete compressive strength at point C. At
point B of the knee closing and opening “BJ” failures, the
range of concrete compressive strengths was not enough to
determine the relationship between the joint shear strain and the
square root of the concrete compressive strength. The concrete
compressive strength can be considered to be the common
influence parameter on the joint shear strain; for example,
the correlation coefficients (between the joint shear strain and
square root of the concrete compressive strength) are 0.85 at
point B and 0.61 at point C for interior “J” failures. An increase
in concrete compressive strength triggered an improvement of
the joint shear–resistance that comes from force transfer to the
joint panel by bearing (from beam and column compression
zones), and also that coming from the bond between the
reinforcement and the surrounding concrete; thus, the concrete
compressive strength is a strong influence parameter and shows
a higher correlation than other examined parameters.
4.2. Joint panel geometry
When examining other possible influence parameters
(beyond concrete compressive strength), the experimental joint
shear stress was always normalized by the square root of
the concrete compressive strength (in conjunction with the
conventional ACI approaches). The ratios of beam height
to column depth (h b / h c ) and beam width to column width
(bb /bc ) were used to examine whether the shape of the joint
panel in the in-plane direction or the out-of-plane dimensions
of in-plane members, respectively, might affect the joint shear
behaviour. The database ranges of h b / h c were from 0.80 to
1.46 for interior joints, from 1.00 to 1.60 for exterior joints,
and from 1.00 to 1.25 for knee joints. The ranges of bb /bc were
from 0.60 to 1.00 for the interior joints, from 0.56 to 1.00 for
the exterior joints, and from 0.69 to 1.00 for the knee joints. At
points B and C, the normalized experimental joint shear stresses
and joint shear strains were little influenced by the joint panel
geometries in either interior or exterior joints. All correlation
coefficients of the normalized joint shear stress (or joint shear
strain) with the joint panel geometry in these cases are closer to
zero than unity; however, the “J” failures did have normalized
joint shear stresses that were slightly reduced according to the
increase of h b / h c and/or bb /bc . For knee joints, it is difficult to
determine the effect of bb /bc and h b / h c because the examined
parameters were concentrated at only certain values. All of this
would tend to indicate in particular that ACI 352R-02 [11], in
defining different design joint shear strengths depending in part
upon the ratio of beam-to-column width, may not be warranted.
4.3. Confinement by reinforcement
Bonacci and Pantazopoulou [4] introduced a joint confine-
ment index (determined as the product of volumetric joint trans-
verse reinforcement ratio and joint transverse reinforcement
yield stress, which is then divided by concrete compressive
strength) to investigate the potential contribution of joint trans-
verse reinforcement to joint shear–resistance. In this research,
the concept suggested by Bonacci and Pantazopoulou [4] was
applied to calculate the confinement by longitudinal beam, lon-
gitudinal column, and joint transverse reinforcement. The vol-
umetric column reinforcement ratio was calculated as the to-
tal volume of the longitudinal column reinforcement (within
the joint panel) divided by the volume of the joint panel (the
product of column width, column depth, and beam height). The
volumetric beam reinforcement ratio was calculated as the to-
tal volume of the beam reinforcement (within the joint panel)
divided by the product of the beam width, column depth, and
beam height. Finally, the volumetric joint transverse reinforce-
ment ratio was taken as the total volume of the joint transverse
reinforcement (located between the top and bottom beam rein-
forcement) divided by the product of the column width, column
depth, and the distance between the top and bottom beam rein-
forcement. The product of each volumetric reinforcement ratio
and reinforcement yield stress was normalized by the concrete
compressive strength, which is then referred to as “confinement
by” reinforcement.
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
(a) Normalized joint shear stress.
Fig. 7. Role of confinement by joint transverse reinforcement (point C).
For the interior joints in the database, the ranges
of confinement by joint transverse, beam, and column
reinforcement were from 3% to 26%, from 17% to 108%,
and from 12% to 128%, respectively. For the exterior joints,
the ranges of confinement by joint transverse, beam, and
column reinforcement were from 4% to 17%, from 7% to 95%,
and from 16% to 83%, respectively. For the knee joints, the
ranges of confinement by joint transverse, beam, and column
reinforcement were from 4% to 13%, from 12% to 65%,
and from 17% to 67%, respectively. (As an example, if the
concrete compressive strength is 30 MPa, the yield strength
of the joint transverse reinforcement is 420 MPa, the provided
cross-sectional area of the joint transverse reinforcement is
70% of that recommended by ACI 352R-02, and 3 layers of
the joint transverse reinforcement are located between the top
and bottom beam reinforcement, the calculated confinement by
joint transverse reinforcement is about 5%.)
Fig. 7 shows the normalized experimental joint shear stress
vs. confinement by the joint transverse reinforcement and
the experimental joint shear strain vs. the confinement by
joint transverse reinforcement at point C. Exterior “J” failures
indicate that the joint shear stress and strain behaviour is
somewhat influenced by the confinement by the joint transverse
reinforcement at point C; the correlation coefficients are 0.70
for the normalized experimental joint shear stress and 0.74
for the experimental joint shear strain at this point, while the
correlation coefficients are closer to zero than unity in the other
cases (except for the knee opening “J” failures). These results
indicate that additional joint transverse reinforcement is not
particularly helpful for improving the joint shear strengths of
interior joints, provided that the minimum amount necessary
for their confinement is used. On the other hand, the amount
of joint transverse reinforcement was somewhat linked to the
joint shear strength of exterior joints when the joint transverse
and longitudinal beam reinforcement remained in the elastic
range. Differing from the interior connections, the longitudinal
beam reinforcement of exterior connections is anchored by
hooks; an increase in the confinement by the joint transverse
reinforcement provides an improvement in a hook’s bond
2533
(b) Joint shear strain.
condition for the longitudinal beam reinforcement. For the knee
connections, it was difficult to reach a general conclusion due to
the small amount of data compared to the interior and exterior
connections, but based on the plot results, the normalized
experimental joint shear stresses were somewhat proportional
to the confinement by the joint transverse reinforcement when a
knee joint panel is subjected to an opening action. Examination
results also showed that an increase in confinement by joint
transverse reinforcement is more effective for an opening action
than for a closing action in knee joints.
Finally, the effects of confinement by beam and/or column
reinforcement on the normalized joint shear stress and joint
shear strain were also examined at points B and C. The joint
shear strength of “J” failures was usually higher than that of
“BJ” failures; the formation of plastic hinge(s) between a joint
panel and longitudinal beam(s) can reduce the confinement
within the joint panel originally provided by the longitudinal
beam(s). Because “J” failures were typically induced by a high
amount and/or high yield stress of the beam reinforcement,
values of the confinement by the beam reinforcement for “J”
failures were generally higher than those of “BJ” failures.
However, within one or the other governing failure mode
sequence (“BJ” or “J”), the effect of the amount of confinement
by the beam reinforcement on the joint shear behaviour was
not distinctive. All correlation coefficients of the normalized
joint shear stress (or joint shear strain) vs. the confinement
by beam reinforcement are closer to zero than unity; however,
the normalized joint shear stresses were slightly proportional
to the confinement by beam reinforcement. At points B and
C, the joint shear behaviour was little influenced by the
confinement by column reinforcement. For knee joints, the
ranges of confinement by beam and column reinforcement were
too narrow to reach any general conclusions.
4.4. Column axial compression
The column axial (compression) stress was calculated as
the column axial force divided by the column cross-sectional
area. The database ranges of the column axial stress normalized
2534 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
Table 5
Bond levels of beam and column reinforcement (Morita et al. [73])
Specimen Reason for a reduction in average bond stress
M1 Beam reinforcement
M2 Column reinforcement
M3 Column reinforcement
M4 Column reinforcement
M6 Beam reinforcement
a Unit in MPa0.5 .
to the concrete compressive strength were from 0 to 0.31 in
interior joints and from 0 to 0.60 in exterior joints. Because
knee connections typically represent subassemblies of the top
storey of an RC moment resisting frame, they are not subjected
to very high column axial forces; during testing, the column of a
knee connection is subjected to a variable axial force according
to loading (at point C, column axial stress ratios were from 0.02
to 0.04 for knee connections with a closing action and from 0.01
to 0.02 for knee connections with an opening action).
At points B and C, the joint shear behaviour was little
influenced by the column axial stress ratio in interior and
exterior joints; all correlation coefficients are closer to zero than
to unity. When considering the combined axial compression
and moment strength of a column section, an increase in
the column axial compression triggers an improvement in
moment strength up to the balanced point (when the extreme
layer of tensile reinforcement reaches the yield strain and
the extreme location of the compressive concrete reaches the
compressive strain limit at the same time). Therefore, when
comparing connections with and without axial compression, the
presence of the column axial compression adds to the strong
column–weak beam behaviour and moves the neutral axis
toward reducing the tensile stress of the longitudinal column
reinforcement. Since the bond strength reduces rapidly within
a joint panel after the reinforcement reaches tensile yielding,
and the presence of the column axial compression causes a
reduction in the tensile stress of the column reinforcement
(compared to without the column axial compression), the
presence of the column axial compression could make for
a somewhat better force flow mechanism to resist vertical
joint shear demand. However, any possible beneficial (or
detrimental) effect of the column axial compression on the joint
shear strength is not clearly represented in this database, where
the horizontal joint shear strength typically governs the joint
shear capacity of the joint panel.
4.5. Bond demand level of the longitudinal reinforcement
Morita et al. [73] reported five interior “J” failures that had
Ash ratios of approximately 0.70. None of their specimens
were subjected to column axial compression, and their column-
to-beam moment strength ratios were from 1.16 to 1.18
(using actual material strengths). They demonstrated that the
initiation of joint shear failure (decrease in storey shear)
was accompanied by a reduction in the average bond stress
of the beam reinforcement when the bond capacity of the
column reinforcement was quite good; however, the initiation
Bond level of beam reinforcement Bond level of column reinforcement
1.18a 0.89a
0.45 1.03
0.44 1.03
0.41 0.95
1.24 0.32
of joint shear failure was accompanied by a reduction in the
average bond stress of the column reinforcement when the bond
capacity of the beam reinforcement was adequate.
Beam and column moments equal to the experimental
values at maximum response have been calculated for the five
specimens of Morita et al. [73]. Using the calculated beam
and column moments, the average bond demands (forces)
on the reinforcement located in the extreme layer were then
determined by the summation of the reinforcement forces
at the faces of the joint panel. The average bond stresses
were calculated next, as the average bond demands divided
by the contact surfaces within the joint panel. Finally, these
average bond stresses were normalized by the square root of
the concrete compressive strength; this result is referred to
as the “bond level” of the beam and/or column longitudinal
reinforcement within the joint panel. Table 5 provides the
“bond levels” (at maximum response) of the beam and column
reinforcement for the specimens of Morita et al. [73], based on
the above method. As summarized in Table 5, a reduction in the
average bond stress started when the bond levels of the beam
reinforcement were around 1.17 or when the bond levels of the
column reinforcement were around 1.0.
Shiohara et al. [43], Shiohara [44], and Morita et al. [50]
also reported that the decreases in the storey shear were
accompanied by a reduction in the average bond stress of the
beam reinforcement at point C. When following the above
method, the calculated bond levels of the beam reinforcement
were from 0.98 to 1.40, and the calculated bond levels
of column reinforcement were from 0.37 to 0.77 for their
specimens at point B; at point C, the calculated bond levels
of the beam reinforcement were from 1.20 to 1.72, and the
calculated bond levels of the column reinforcement were from
0.47 to 0.85. When comparing these values to the bond levels
for the specimens of Morita et al. [73], a bond level of 1.17
for the beam reinforcement is conservative as a bond upper
limit for preventing a reduction in the average bond stress
for the unyielded beam reinforcement in interior joints. Since
the bond demand levels of the column reinforcement for the
specimens of Shiohara et al. [43], Shiohara [44], and Morita
et al. [50] were below 1.0, and the column reinforcement did
not affect the storey shear decrease, a bond level of 1.0 for the
column reinforcement can be assumed as the bond upper limit
for preventing a reduction in the average bond stress for the
unyielded column reinforcement in interior joints.
At points B and C, the bond levels of the unyielded beam
and column reinforcement were then calculated for interior
connection specimens within the database, based on the above
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
(a) Point B.
Fig. 8. Calculated bond demand levels for interior joints (points B and C).
procedure. Since the beam reinforcement of interior “BJ”
failures reached the tensile yield stress at around point B,
no evaluation of the bond levels for the beam reinforcement
was included at point C for interior “BJ” failures. Exterior
connections and knee joints had no available experimental
results for determining the upper limits to prevent a reduction in
the average bond stress; thus, bond levels for exterior and knee
joints were not evaluated.
Fig. 8 represents the bond demand levels of the unyielded
beam and column reinforcements for interior connections. At
point B, most of the bond demand levels of the unyielded
beam and column reinforcement are below the bond upper
limits for preventing a reduction in the average bond stress.
At point C, most of the bond demand levels of the unyielded
beam reinforcement for interior “J” failures are above the upper
limit, while most of the bond demand levels of the unyielded
column reinforcement are still below the upper limit. This
implies that the beam reinforcement is typically more likely to
undergo a reduction in the average bond stress than the column
reinforcement at point C.
At point B, the joint shear stress and strain behaviour was
little influenced by the bond demand level of the unyielded
beam and column reinforcement. Fig. 9 shows the normalized
experimental joint shear stress vs. the bond demand level and
the experimental joint shear strain vs. the bond demand level at
point C. The joint shear stress and strain behaviour is somewhat
influenced by the bond demand level of the unyielded beam
reinforcement at point C of interior “J” failures; correlation
coefficients are 0.65 for the normalized experimental joint shear
stress and −0.76 for the experimental joint shear strain. Since
the storey shear decrease is accompanied by a reduction in the
average bond stress of the unyielded beam reinforcement at
point C for interior “J” failures, an improved bond condition
causes an increase of force resistance and a decrease in
deformation for the joint panels of interior connections.
5. ACI 352R-02 recommendations
As indicated in an earlier section about the database’s
construction, some included specimens did not fully satisfy
2535
(b) Point C.
all of the design checks of ACI 352R-02 [11] for the cross-
sectional area and spacing of the joint transverse reinforcement,
for the column depth of interior connections as relates to
diameter of continuous (straight) beam reinforcement, and/or
for the development length of hooked beam reinforcement
of exterior and knee connections. To examine whether
these unsatisfactory conditions per ACI 352R-02 had any
effect on the trends for the joint shear stress and strain
behaviour at points B and C observed within the constructed
database, the following ratios were first calculated: the
provided-to-recommended cross-sectional area and spacing of
joint transverse reinforcement, the provided-to-recommended
column depth (for interior connections), and the provided-to-
recommended development length of the longitudinal beam
reinforcement (for exterior and knee connections). Then, the
normalized experimental joint shear stress (or experimental
joint shear strain) vs. these calculated ratios were plotted at
points B and C. For example, Fig. 10 shows the normalized
experimental joint shear stress and the experimental joint
shear strain (at point C) vs. the provided-to-recommended [11]
spacing of the joint transverse reinforcement. Within the range
of the constructed database, the joint shear stress and strain
were little influenced by the spacing ratio of the joint transverse
reinforcement, and the inclusion of unsatisfactory cases did not
change the relation between the joint shear stress (and strain)
vs. the spacing ratio of the joint transverse reinforcement (and
at point B, the joint shear stress and strain behaviour were
also little affected by the unsatisfactory condition of the joint
transverse reinforcement spacing); correlation coefficients are
closer to zero than to unity at points B and C.
As with the spacing of the joint transverse reinforcement,
the joint shear stress and strain were little influenced by
variation of the other unsatisfactory conditions of less cross-
sectional area of the joint transverse reinforcement, less column
depth for the interior connections, and/or less development
length of the longitudinal beam reinforcement for the exterior
and the knee connections. ACI 352R-02 also provides design
recommendations for the cross-sectional area and spacing of
vertical stirrups for knee joints. McConnell and Wallace [67]
reported that the use of vertical stirrups did not significantly
2536 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539

(a) Normalized joint shear stress. (b) Joint shear strain.

Fig. 9. Role of the bond demand levels of the beam and column reinforcement for interior joints (point C).

(a) Normalized joint shear stress. (b) Joint shear strain.

Fig. 10. Provided-to-recommended spacing of the joint transverse reinforcement (point C).

affect joint performance under moderate inelastic response,
but that they clearly improved both the strength and ductility
for knee joints subjected to large deformations. Within the
database, 6 of the 13 knee joints had vertical stirrups; however,
the use of vertical stirrups did not significantly trigger any
improvement in the knee joint shear stress or strain behaviour
for either the closing or the opening actions. Based on all of
these results, the inclusion of some specimens in the database
with certain design values somewhat outside the recommended
range per ACI 352R-02 was still admissible for the purpose of
evaluating the effects of various influence parameters on the
joint shear stress and strain behaviour at points B and C.
In ACI 352R-02, the design joint shear strength is defined
as the product of the design joint shear stress and effective
joint shear area. The design joint shear stress is determined by
multiplying a joint shear strength factor and the square root
of the concrete compressive strength, and the effective joint
shear area is the product of an effective joint width (average
of beam and column widths) and the column depth. When
comparing the joint shear strength factors defined by ACI
352R-02 with the normalized experimental joint shear strength
(stress at point C), the fraction of database cases that had lower
normalized experimental joint shear stresses compared to the
design joint shear strength factor defined by ACI 352R-02 were
8%, 44%, 46%, and 100% for interior, exterior, knee closing,
and knee opening connections, respectively. This means that
the current joint shear strengths defined by ACI 352R-02 are
relatively less conservative for exterior and knee connections
when compared to interior connections (for RC beam–column
connections without out-of-plane members).
For additional examination, the average values of the nor-
malized experimental joint shear stress at point C (maximum
response) were calculated according to the various classified
groups, and these average values are shown in Table 6; the aver-
ages decrease in the sequence of interior, exterior, knee closing,
and knee opening. For all connection types, averages of “J” fail-
ures are larger than those of “BJ” failures under the same con-
dition of in-plane geometry, except for the knee joints with a
closing action. For RC beam–column connections without out-
of-plane members, the permissible joint shear strength factors
of ACI 352R-02 are 1.25 (or 1.00) for interior connections,
1.00 for exterior connections, and 0.67 for knee connections.
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539 2537

Table 6
Average values of the normalized experimental joint shear stress at point C

Interior Exterior Knee (closing) Knee (opening)

BJ No. 51 27 8 8
Avg. 1.63c 1.02 0.67 0.37
Max. 2.46c 1.42 0.79 0.57
Min. 1.11c 0.71 0.50 0.28
S.D.a 4.22 2.17 0.83 0.10
C.O.V.b 0.22 0.18 0.11 0.02
J No. 27 21 5 5
Avg. 1.92 1.11 0.64 0.39
Max. 2.38 1.66 0.72 0.43
Min. 1.51 0.78 0.47 0.29
S.D. 2.54 3.08 1.39 0.94
C.O.V. 0.11 0.23 0.18 0.20
BJ and J No. 78 48 13 13
Avg. 1.73 1.06 0.66 0.38
Max. 2.46 1.66 0.79 0.57
Min. 1.11 0.71 0.47 0.28
S.D. 4.06 2.63 1.02 0.94
C.O.V. 0.20 0.21 0.13 0.20
a Standard deviation.
b Coefficient of variation.
c Unit in MPa0.5 .

In an average sense, then, the normalized experimental joint
shear stresses were quite a bit higher than the permissible joint
shear strength factor for interior connections (1.73 when the
joint shear strength factor is 1.25, and 1.74 when the joint shear
strength factor is 1.00); the normalized experimental joint shear
stress was close to the permissible joint shear strength factor
for exterior connections, and the normalized experimental joint
shear stresses (0.66 with closing action and 0.38 with opening
action) were lower than the permissible joint shear strength fac-
tor (0.67) for knee connections.
6. Summary and conclusions
The key influence parameters on joint shear behaviour
at identified points A (first distinct stiffness change due to
initiation of cracking), B (second distinct stiffness change
due to reinforcement yielding), and C (maximum response
and initiation of concrete crushing) have been assessed by
constructing a database of RC beam–column connection
subassemblies exhibiting joint shear failure. The database
includes RC beam–column connections with at least a
minimum amount of joint transverse reinforcement (necessary
for proper confinement within the joint panel), and it has been
organized according to the governing failure mode sequence
(“BJ” vs. “J”) and the in-plane joint geometry (interior, exterior,
and knee). The selected specimens did not have any out-of-
plane members such as transverse beam(s) and/or slab(s). With
respect to the database construction and subsequent assessment
of influence parameters on the joint shear behaviour, the most
important results can be summarized as follows.
6.1. Database construction
• The joint confinement was defined as being maintained
within a joint panel when the joint transverse reinforcement
remains within the elastic range (from other experimental
specimens that had no out-of-plane members and that
displayed beam flexural failure). By surveying published
experimental papers, the minimum cross-sectional area of
the joint transverse reinforcement necessary for proper
confinement within a joint panel was determined to be
about 70% of the recommended cross-sectional area per ACI
352R-02.
• Prior to attaining a subassembly storey shear decrease, the
initiation of concrete cracking (point A) and reinforcement
yielding (point B) caused the most distinct stiffness changes.
The yielding of the joint transverse reinforcement triggered
the second distinct stiffness change for interior “J” failures,
while there was no distinct stiffness change between
points A and C for exterior and knee “J” failures. For
interior, exterior, and knee “BJ” failures, the yielding of the
longitudinal beam reinforcement caused the second distinct
stiffness change.
• For point A of interior, exterior, and knee connections, the
joint shear stress and strain can be reasonably calculated
by using a stress/strain coordinate transformation based on
assumptions about the principal tensile stress and strain;
the principal tensile stress and strain were assumed to be
the stress and strain corresponding to the concrete tensile
strength. These calculated joint shear stress and strain values
could roughly predict the experimental joint shear stress and
strain at point A.
6.2. Assessment of influence parameters on the joint shear
behaviour (points B and C)
• For points B and C, the concrete compressive strength
was the most common influence parameter; the joint shear
stress and strain behaviour was most coherently dependent
2538 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
on the concrete compressive strength. Thus, the concrete
compressive strength can be considered as the governing
parameter of the overall joint shear stress and strain
behaviour. Under the same conditions of the concrete
compressive strength and governing failure mode, the joint
shear–resistance capacity becomes less in the sequence
of interior, exterior, and knee connections; therefore, in-
plane geometry is clearly important in determining joint
shear–resistance capacity.
• For point C of interior “J” failures, the joint shear stress
and strain behaviour was somewhat influenced by the bond
demand level of the unyielded beam reinforcement; an
improved bond condition triggered an increased (force)
resistance and a decreased deformation for the joint panels
of interior connections.
• For point C of exterior “J” failures, the joint shear stress
and strain behaviour was somewhat affected by the degree
of confinement by the joint transverse reinforcement; an
improved confinement by the joint transverse reinforcement
(which remained within the elastic range) caused an
increased (force) resistance and deformation for the joint
panel of exterior connections. For point C of knee “J”
failures, the increase of confinement by the joint transverse
reinforcement is more effective in an opening action than in
a closing action.
• In the constructed experimental database, specimens
with “unsatisfactory” design conditions (related to the
provided-to-recommended cross-sectional area and spacing
of the joint transverse reinforcement, the provided-to-
recommended column depth for interior connections, and/or
the provided-to-recommended development length of the
beam reinforcement for exterior and knee connections) per
ACI 352R-02 recommendations little affected joint shear
stress and strain behaviour trends at points B and C.
• When an RC beam–column connection has no out-of-plane
members (such as transverse beam(s) and/or slab(s)), then
the joint shear strength defined by ACI 352R-02 is relatively
less conservative for exterior and knee connections when
compared to interior connections.
The database constructed here and the resulting characteri-
zation of joint shear stress and joint shear strain are expected to
contribute toward developing more complete prediction mod-
els for the joint shear stress vs. joint shear strain response of
RC beam–column connection subassemblies subjected to cyclic
lateral loading.
References
[1] Hanson NW, Connor HW. Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete
beam–column joints. J Struct Div, ASCE 1967;93(5):533–59.
[2] Paulay T, Park R, Priestley MJN. Reinforced concrete beam–column
joints under seismic actions. ACI J 1978;75(11):585–93.
[3] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Development of design criteria for
RC interior beam–column joints. In: Design of beam–column joints for
seismic resistance (SP123). Detroit (MI): ACI; 1991. p. 97–123.
[4] Bonacci J, Pantazopoulou S. Parametric investigation of joint mechanics.
ACI Struct J 1993;90(1):61–70.
[5] Goto Y, Joh O. An experimental study of shear failure mechanism of
RC interior beam–column joints. In: Proc., 11th world conference on
earthquake engineering. 1996. p. 1194.
[6] Kamimura T, Takeda S, Tochio M. Influence of joint reinforcement
on strength and deformation of interior beam–column subassemblages.
In: Proc., 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. 2000.
p. 2267.
[7] Kitayama K. Restoring force characteristics in reinforced concrete
beam–column joints. Trans JCI 1992;14:491–8.
[8] Teraoka M, Fujii S. Seismic damage and performance evaluation
on R/C beam–column joints. In: The second US–Japan workshop
on performance-based engineering for reinforced concrete building
structures. 2000. p. 379–90.
[9] Shin M, LaFave JM. Modeling of cyclic joint shear deformation
contributions in RC beam–column connections to overall frame
behaviour. Struct Eng Mech 2004;18(5):645–69.
[10] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirement for reinforced concrete
(ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02). Farmington Hills (MI);
2002.
[11] ACI-ASCE Committee 352. Recommendations for design of
beam–column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete structures
(ACI 352R-02). Farmington Hills (MI); 2002.
[12] Kitayama K, Kurusu K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Behaviour of beam–column
connections with improved beam reinforcement bond. Trans JCI 1985;7:
551–8.
[13] Kurose Y. Recent studies on reinforced concrete beam–column joints in
Japan. 87-8. University of Texas at Austin; 1987.
[14] Zerbe HE, Durrani AJ. Seismic response of connections in determinate
R/C frame subassemblies. ECE-8504959. Rice University; 1990.
[15] Kikuta S, Chiba O, Yanagishita K, Yamauchi S. Experimental study
on beam–column connections using high ratio of longitudinal beam
reinforcement. In: Proc. JCI. 1990. p. 645–50 [in Japanese].
[16] Etoh K, Kitayama K, Tsubosaki H, Miyakomatsuri H. Recovery
characteristic of RC beam column connection subjected to bi-axial
loading. In: Proc., JCI. 1991. p. 519–24 [in Japanese].
[17] Kitayama K, Lee S, Otani S, Aoyama H. Behaviour of high-strength
R/C beam–column joints. In: Proc., 10th world conference on earthquake
engineering. 1992. p. 3151–6.
[18] Joh O, Goto Y. Beam–column joint behaviour after beam yielding in
R/C ductile frames. In: Proc., 12th world conference on earthquake
engineering. 2000. p. 2196.
[19] Megget LM. Cyclic behaviour of exterior reinforced concrete
beam–column joints. Bull NZSEE 1974;7(1):22–47.
[20] Lee DL, Wight JK, Hanson RD. RC beam–column joints under large load
reversals. J Struct Div 1977;103(12):2337–50.
[21] Ehsani MR, Moussa AE, Vallenilla CR. Comparison of inelastic
behaviour of reinforced ordinary-and high strength concrete frames. ACI
Struct J 1987;84(2):161–9.
[22] Hamada M, Ishibashi H, Horie A. Experimental study about RC exterior
beam connection. In: Proc., JCI. 1999. p. 667–72 [in Japanese].
[23] Chutarat N, Aboutaha RS. Cyclic response of exterior reinforced
concrete beam–column joints reinforced with headed bars-experimental
investigation. ACI Struct J 2003;100(2):259–64.
[24] Hwang S, Lee H, Liao T, Wang K, Tsai H. Role of hoops on shear strength
of reinforced concrete beam–column joints. ACI Struct J 2005;102(3):
445–53.
[25] Meinheit DF, Jirsa J. The shear strength of reinforced concrete
beam–column joints. 77-1. University of Texas at Austin; 1977.
[26] Briss GR. The elastic behaviour of earthquake-resistant reinforced
concrete beam–column joints. 78-13. University of Canterbury; 1978.
[27] Durrani AJ, Wight JK. Behaviour of interior beam-to-column connections
under earthquake-type loading. ACI J 1985;82(3):343–9.
[28] Kitayama K, Asakura H, Otani S, Aoyama H. Earthquake resistant design
criteria for reinforced concrete interior beam–column joints. Trans JCI
1988;10:281–8.
 J. Kim, J.M. LaFave / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 2523–2539
[29] Watanabe K, Abe K, Murakawa J, Noguchi H. Strength and deformation
of reinforced concrete interior beam–column joints. Trans JCI 1988;10:
183–8.
[30] Leon RT. Shear strength and hysteretic behaviour of interior
beam–column joints. ACI Struct J 1990;87(1):3–11.
[31] Inoue H, Higashi K, Ohta K. Experimental study on effect of transverse
beam and slab of reinforced concrete cross type beam–column joints. In:
Proc., AIJ. 1990. p. 379–80 [in Japanese].
[32] Hayashi K, Kana Y, Teraoka M. Experimental study about eccentric beam
column connection. In: Proc., JCI. 1991. p. 507–12 [in Japanese].
[33] Noguchi H, Kashiwazaki T. Experimental studies on shear performances
of RC interior column-beam joints with high-strength materials. In: Proc.,
10th world conference on earthquake engineering. 1992. p. 3163–8.
[34] Goto Y, Joh O, Shibata T. Influence of connection reinforcement to
maximum capacity and deformation performance of RC frame. In: Proc.,
JCI. 1992. p. 401–4 [in Japanese].
[35] Asou N, Nagashima T, Sugano S. Force characteristic of beam column
connection using high strength concrete (Fc600) and reinforcement
(SD490). In: Proc., JCI. 1993. p. 553–8 [in Japanese].
[36] Kaku A, Maso K, Kutoka T, Muguruma T. Experimental study about
deformation characteristic of beam column connection in RC structure.
In: Proc., JCI. 1993. p. 559–64 [in Japanese].
[37] Okada T. Earthquake resistance of reinforced concrete structures. Tokyo
(Japan): University of Tokyo; 1993.
[38] Teraoka M, Kanoh Y. Structural behaviour of interior beam–column
joints with normal-to high strength concrete. In: Proc., Second
US–Japan–NZ–Canada multilateral meeting. 1994. 7-2B.
[39] Oda M, Kosugi K, Yamanoka H, Tano K. Bond characteristic of
longitudinal beam reinforcement in beam column connection for high
strength reinforcement concrete structure. In: Proc., JCI. 1997. p. 993–8
[in Japanese].
[40] Tochio M, Takeda S, Uemura T, Hayashi S. Failure characteristic of
reinforced concrete interior beam column connection after reaching
maximum capacity. In: Proc., JCI. 1998. p. 535–40 [in Japanese].
[41] Tateishi M, Ishibashi K. Experimental study about failure type in beam
column connection after reaching yielding of beam reinforcement. In:
Proc., JCI. 1998. p. 517–22.
[42] Joh O, Goto Y. Beam–column joint behaviour after beam yielding in
R/C ductile frames. In: Proc., 12th world conference on earthquake
engineering. 2000. p. 2196.
[43] Shiohara H, Zaid S, Otani S. Test of innovative reinforcing detail for R/C
interior beam–column connections subjected to seismic action. In: Proc.,
third international conference on concrete under severe condition. 2001.
p. 739–46.
[44] Shiohara H. New model for shear failure of RC interior beam–column
connections. J Struct Engng, ASCE 2001;127(2):152–60.
[45] Saka T, Otsuka K, Yamamoto Y, Maruta M. Application of 3-D finite
element analysis of reinforced concrete colum-beam joint for expectation
of failure mode. In: Proc., AIJ. 2004. p. 769–70 [in Japanese].
[46] Ishida K, Akiyama K, Pareek S, Kuroda K. Experimental study on
beam–column joints of RC structures using high-strength concrete and
steel. In: Proc., AIJ. 2004. p. 779–80 [in Japanese].
[47] Zhang L, Jirsa JO. A study of shear behaviour of reinforced concrete
beam–column joints. 82-1. University of Texas at Austin; 1982.
[48] Kitayama K, Otani S, Aoyama H. Behaviour of reinforced concrete
interior beam–column connection under high joint shear force. Trans JCI
1989;11:531–6.
[49] Fujii S, Morita S. Comparison between interior and exterior RC
beam–column joint behaviour. In: Design of beam–column joints for
seismic resistance (SP123). Detroit (MI): ACI; 1991. p. 145–65.
[50] Morita S, Kitayama K, Koyama A, Hosono T. Effects of beam bond
and column axial load on shear strength on reinforced concrete interior
beam–column joints. Trans JCI 1999;21:453–60.
[51] Uzumeri SM. Strength and ductility of cast-in-place beam–column joints.
In: Reinforced concrete structures in seismic zones (SP 53). Detroit (MI):
2539
ACI; 1977. p. 293–350.
[52] Paulay T, Scarpas A. Behaviour of exterior beam–column joints. Bull
NZSEE 1981;14(3):131–44.
[53] Kaneda K, Kondoh G, Fujii S, Morita S. Correlation between shear failure
and anchorage failure in exterior beam column connections. In: Proc., JCI.
1984. p. 665–8 [in Japanese].
[54] Ehsani MR, Wight JK. Effect of transverse beams and slab on behaviour
of reinforced concrete beam-to-column connections. ACI J 1985;82(2):
188–95.
[55] Nishiyama M, Nishizaki T, Muguruma H, Watanabe F. Seismic design
of prestressed concrete beam-exterior column joints. Trans JCI 1989;11:
439–46.
[56] Ehsani MR, Alameddine F. Design recommendations for type 2 high-
strength reinforced concrete connections. ACI Struct J 1991;88(3):
277–91.
[57] Tsonos AG, Tegos IA, Penelis GG. Seismic resistance of type 2 exterior
beam–column joints reinforced with inclined bars. ACI Struct J 1992;
89(1):3–11.
[58] Mitsuwa W, Ishibashi T, Sato K, Ohtsuki S. Experimental study
about shear failure in beam column connections using high strength
reinforcement. In: Proc., JCI. 1992. p. 385–90 [in Japanese].
[59] Joh O, Goto Y, Shibata T. Shear resistance performance in RC exterior
beam column connection using high strength materials. In: Proc., JCI.
1992. p. 391–5 [in Japanese].
[60] Tsonos AG. Influence of P–delta effect and axial force variations on
seismic performance of R/C beam–column joints. In. Proc., 11th world
conference on earthquake engineering. 1996. p. 679.
[61] Joh O, Goto Y, Shibata T. Influence of joint reinforcement to shear
resistance characteristic in RC exterior beam column connections. In:
Proc., JCI. 1989. p. 537–43 [in Japanese].
[62] Joh O, Goto Y, Shibata T. Shear resistance characteristic of exterior beam
column connection using high strength concrete. In: Proc., JCI. 1990. p.
639–44 [in Japanese].
[63] Ishida K, Fujii S, Morita S, Choi G. Shear strength of exterior beam
column connection under bi-axial earthquake loading. In: Proc., JCI.
1996. p. 953–8 [in Japanese].
[64] Yamada T, Nakanishi M, Adachi H, Aoyama H. Experimental study about
mechanics of exterior beam column connections under variable column
axial force. In: Proc., JCI. 1999. p. 637–42 [in Japanese].
[65] Lee DH, Lee SH. An experimental study on the shear characteristic of
reinforced concrete exterior beam–column joints under cyclic loading. In:
Proc., AIK. 2000. p. 237–40 [in Korean].
[66] Kramer DA, Shahrooz BM. Seismic response of beam–column knee
connections. ACI Struct J 1994;91(3):251–60.
[67] McConnell SW, Wallace JW. Behaviour of reinforced concrete
beam–column knee-joints subjected to reversed cyclic loading. 95-07.
Clarkson University; 1995.
[68] Aota K, Watanabe T, Naruse T, Morimoto T. Anchorage method using
end plate of top storey beam–column connections. In: Proc., JCI. 2001. p.
391–6 [in Japanese].
[69] Mazzoni S, Moehle JP, Thewart CR. Cyclic response of RC beam–column
knee joints. EERC 91-14, University of California at Berkeley; 1991.
[70] Shimonoka H, Choi G, Uchida T, Fujii S. Shear strength of reinforced
concrete T and L shape beam–column connections. In: Proc., JCI. 1997.
p. 1023–8 [in Japanese].
[71] Chen WF, Saleeb AF. Constitutive equations for engineering materials.
Elasticity and modeling, vol. 1. Amsterdam (The Netherlands): Elsevier;
1994.
[72] Ang AHS, Tang WH. Probability concepts in engineering planning and
design. Basic principles, vol. 1. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons;
1975.
[73] Morita S, Kitayama K, Kishida S, Nishikawa T. Shear force and
capacity in reinforced concrete beam–column joints with good bond along
beam and column bars. In: Proc., 13th world conference on earthquake
engineering. 2004. p. 1761.